The Delhi High Court on Thursday,December 4 continued its detailed scrutiny of the disputed Will of late industrialist Sunjay Kapur, with multiple legal and evidentiary gaps emerging that could weigh heavily against its credibility. Appearing for Karisma Kapoor’s children, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani urged the Court to apply strict statutory standards since the document allegedly sidelines natural heirs, including minors. The proceedings repeatedly returned to one core question: Has the Will been proved as lawful, voluntary and genuine—or is it merely a paper assertion of last wishes
Key Thrusts of Arguments by Senior Counsel Mahesh Jethmalani
- No reliable digital or physical evidence connects Sunjay Kapur to the making of this Will; he is not copied on any email related to it.
- The Will claims both witnesses signed in each other’s presence, yet their affidavits omit the time, place or confirmation of joint presence.
- WhatsApp chats relied upon by Defendant Priya Sachdev Kapur lack mandatory certification; even those chats show no participation from Sunjay Kapur.
- Priya’s claim that the children got shares worth ₹2,500 crore and she received ₹7,500 crore remains only a notional paper value—no actual money has reached the children.
- In a Ben-1 form filed on 6 August 2025, Priya declared “no beneficial interest” in Sunjay Kapur’s 6.5% AIPL shareholding, contradicting her claim that she knew these shares were bequeathed to her under the Will—suggesting possible post-facto fabrication.
- Sunjay Kapur’s mobile phone, crucial for verifying digital communications, has never been deposited before the Court.
The “Digital Ghost” Argument
Jethmalani described Sunjay Kapur as a “digital ghost” in relation to the Will, pointing out that not a single email, message, instruction or approval from him exists linking him to the drafting or finalisation of the document. Even the WhatsApp chats cited by the propounders do not feature his participation.
He submitted that it is fundamentally inconsistent for a sophisticated businessman to leave no digital trace if he had seriously considered such a major estate decision. Further, none of the digital records has been certified as required under the Evidence Act—rendering the chats inadmissible.
Timing of the Will Raises Questions
The Will is dated March 2025, a period when Kapur was healthy, professionally active and financially stable. There is no medical emergency, conflict, or documented trigger that would justify a sudden reshaping of his succession plan, especially when earlier trust arrangements were already in place for his children. This abrupt shift without explanation adds to the cloud of suspicion.
Defective Attestation: A Core Legal Defect
The strongest challenge came from alleged statutory noncompliance. Neither of the two attesting witnesses states that the other was present when the Will was signed. Under Indian law, both must witness the testator’s signature in each other’s presence. This omission is not a technical lapse but a fundamental defect that strikes at the heart of valid execution.
Broken Chain of Custody
The chain of custody of the original Will remains unclear—from who held it immediately after Kapur’s death, to where it was stored, to how it eventually resurfaced. In high-value estates, any break in custody invites suspicion and raises concerns about interpolation or substitution.
Inconsistent Place and Time of Execution
While the Will states it was executed in Gurugram, neither witness confirms this location in their affidavits. Neither specifies the exact time. These inconsistencies, especially given the proximity of the date to later events, constitute classic suspicious circumstances under testamentary law.
“Generosity” Narrative Rebutted
Payments for the children’s schooling and living expenses originated from binding Supreme Court orders in earlier matrimonial proceedings. Jethmalani argued that such court-mandated obligations cannot be later repackaged as voluntary generosity or used to justify dilution of children’s inheritance rights.
Unexplained Exclusion of Natural Heirs
Indian succession law treats the unexplained exclusion of natural heirs—especially minors—with heightened judicial suspicion. No note, email, record or communication has been produced to explain why Sunjay Kapur would suddenly deviate from his publicly known concern for his children.
Thursday’s hearing marked a significant stage in the judicial scrutiny of Sunjay Kapur’s disputed Will. Arguments revolved around digital silence, inconsistent timelines, defective attestation and a murky chain of custody. Jethmalani alleged that the defendants’ submissions “conceal more than they reveal,” accompanied by documents filed with “utmost reluctance.” The proceedings reinforced his claim that attempts have been made at “stupid fabrication” supported by fake digital evidence to fortify a questionable Will.